"There are some truths which are so obvious that, for this
very reason, they are not seen or at least not recognized by ordinary
people. They sometimes pass by such truisms as though blind, and
are most astonished when someone suddenly discovers what everyone
really ought to know." Adolf Hitler in "Mein Kampf"

It is my opinion that Adolf Hitler was a man who - while he may
not have had much intelligence - seemed to get along fine without
it.

The above quote may strike the point down a little deeper. How
could he say something is obvious, yet say it is not recognized
by the commoner simply because it is obvious?

The definition of obvious is: "Easily discovered, seen, or
understood; readily perceived by the eye or the intellect; plain;
evident." It seems to me that, if something is obvious then,
by definition, it would have to be readily perceived by people everywhere.
And if ordinary people are not noticing or realizing it, it can't
be obvious to them.

This is the fallacy of non sequitur, the Latin words for "does
not follow." A non sequitur describes a catch-all fallacy where
the conclusion just does not follow from the given premises.

The term "non sequitur" is most often used when a statement
openly contradicts itself and makes no sense. If no other title
can be ascribed to an argument's logical irregularities, but the
conclusion plainly does not follow from the premises, we can call
those irregularities a non sequitur just for lack of any other title.

Example: I think I would make a good diplomat to China. I have
a very good record in dealing with minorities.

This statement makes no sense, but since no other fallacy title
can be found to cover it, it is a non sequitur. Foreigners that
are minorities in America are not minorities in their home country.
Consequently, having a reputation for dealing with minorities over
here would not have much sway where these minorities are two billion
strong.

Likewise, with Adolf Hitler. When common people are not recognizing
something, it is because it is not readily recognizable to them
- it is not obvious to them. What is obvious to one person is not
obvious to another. Our quote is a contradiction in terms.

While Adolf Hitler is doing a bad job of it, possibly what he is
trying to communicate is this: there are things that are obvious
to him that are seemingly not so obvious to the common people, and
so, when Hitler enlightens them to these ideas, they suddenly say,
"why did we not see this before." However, Hitler does
not say this. We may give him the benefit of the doubt and claim
this irregularity to a mistake of the translation into English (I
don't know German and can only speculate), the fact remains, the
statement does not make sense - it is a non sequitur by fault of
Adolf Hitler or the translator.

Another example of a non sequitur was given to me by Ted Holt,
of Corinth, Mississippi. It came from a news report on the internet
describing a particularly well-preserved archaeological excavation
site in Georgia.

"It's very unusual to find a site in this good of a state,"
said David Brewer, an archaeologist with National Park Service.
"This is one of the best unexcavated sites in the world."
"Augusta Chronicle"

Hmm. Let's think about this for a minute. If this is one of the
best unexcavated sites in the world, where are all the other unexcavated
sites, and what is the state of these sites? Of course they have
not been excavated yet. But, if all the other sites have not been
excavated yet, how do you know this one is the best?

This reminds me of the fellow who wondered what the highest mountain
in the world had been before Mount Everest was discovered.

Similarly, the statement that this archaeological site is one of
the best unexcavated sites in the world makes no sense; it contradicts
itself, because until they excavated it, how did they know what
was there?

How do you deal with a non sequitur? Point out the contradictions
and absurdities as they become obvious. Perhaps you can come up
with a parallel example that makes the absurdities painfully obvious.
If you think the perpetrator committed the non sequitur by mistake,
give them opportunity to re-express themselves.

GUESS THE FALLACY:

From The Wizard of Oz:

"DOROTHY: Are you doing that on purpose, or can't you make
up your mind?

"SCARECROW: That's the trouble. I can't make up my mind.
I haven't got a brain. Just straw.

"DOROTHY: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?

"SCARECROW: I don't know. But some people without brains
do an awful lot of talking, don't they?

"DOROTHY: Yes, I guess you're right."

When I first heard this, I thought it was well said and very truea
quote that could be aptly placed in one of those volumes of quotable
quotations. "Some people without brains do an awful lot of
talking, don't they?" I think I know a few of them.

But this thought - even though it comes from the Scarecrow, and
consequently should not be taken too seriously (he hasn't any brain)
- has one flaw: It has a logical irregularity.

What is it?

Send your answers - and reasons for your answers - to me and I'll
print the best ones next time.